The Tribal Mind: How they know what you're watching

Wednesday May 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Who We Are

by David Dale
IT'S conceivable that this column has left a few readers behind in its weekly discussions of the way Australians consume their mass entertainments. We've received questions demanding to know how we could sensibly make such observations as "Channel Nine appeals primarily to the over-50s'' or "Seven has captured the grocery buyers'' or "Viewers under 40 are watching less television and playing more computer games''.

So today we are going to answer your most frequently asked questions -- a special feature which you should cut out and keep (unless you are reading this online, where you probably should not attempt to cut it out).

Why is the ratings agency called OzTAM? The Oz part is obvious, but the TAM part comes from the surname of the inventor of ratings in Australia. According to Wikipedia, George Taminondas was a Greek immigrant who started asking his friends and neighbours in 1957 what they were watching on TV, and sold the results to channels Seven and Nine.

Over time, Taminondas trained a bunch of media analysts to visit sample households and discuss what they were watching. These analysts came to be known as "People-meeters''. Nowadays, OzTAM is one-quarter owned by George's grandsons, Con and Theo, and the other three-quarters are divided among channels Seven, Nine and Ten.

How are ratings measured? The People-meeter system worked well until the late 1990s, when it became apparent that the Taminondas analysts could not reach enough households to offer a fair sampling of the community. Technology came to OzTAM's aid. Since 2001, every TV set sold in Australia has been fitted with a miniature camera/microphone that records everything happening in front of the screen when the set is on. The device is called "Diary'' (acronym for Digital Investigation And Research Yield).

At 2am each day, all Diary recordings over the past 24 hours are sent to the central Taminondas computer, from which the ratings figures are calculated and sent to TV networks at 8am.

But how do they know all those demographic details about viewers? The Diary footage is analysed by experts (still called PMs, although they never meet anybody any more) who study viewer behaviour and estimate age, wealth and gender. In addition, networks that pay a premium (the so-called "platinum subscribers'') receive a daily disk of footage taken in homes across the nation, showing the most interesting things viewers have done in front of their TV sets. Some of it is disturbing, but most of it is useful in determining where and when to place commercials.

Next week: Why there seems to be no relationship between ratings and how good a program is.

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). His latest book is Soffritto -- A delicious Ligurian memoir. To join a daily discussion of Australian attitudes, go to http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

Very Funny!
I believed the Greek bit; but then the Orwellian telescreen was a bit too much.
For fellow idiots, like myself, here
is how it actually does work:
http://www.oztam.com.au/html/faq.htm#measure

by steve on June 11, 2007 at 09:22 PM

This article is a load of rubbish. There are not little cameras in every TV watching our movements. It is categorically incorrect - check the OzTam website.
Not sure if there is irony intended in this article. If I was David Dale I would be expecting a letter from OzTam's lawyers in the morning.

by Pollio on June 11, 2007 at 09:22 PM

big brother. i wonder how many people believed this when they first read it.

by cor on June 11, 2007 at 09:29 PM

And exactly how does this video footage get sent......
The oztam website tells a different story...

Tribal Mind replies: By a wireless broadband system that connects into your phone.

by Frank on June 11, 2007 at 09:30 PM

A miniature camera/microphone? Is it April the 1st already? I'm pretty sure families are asked to use a set top box which takes note of their viewing behaviour eg. channel and time watched. A national average is then calculated by adding up other data from other families who are part of the survey.

by Alistair on June 11, 2007 at 09:35 PM

sorry...all i wanted to say was...
DALEK!!!!!!!!!
if only the process was as described, we would actually have better programming since the ratings would reflect the current crap programming.

by airmaestro on June 11, 2007 at 09:42 PM

Does the author normally try to be a comedian? I certainly hope he does not believe his own pen on this occasion!

by David (not the author) on June 11, 2007 at 09:54 PM

can i possible be the only person who beleived this???

by Roobs on June 11, 2007 at 09:54 PM

TM, you forgot to mention the lengthy work that Taminondas undertook in another research field.
Food companies wanted to know what was being eaten in the home. They needed a way to judge whether consumers were going the fresh food route, or whether household were going for more and more of prepackaged convenience foods.
Take, for example, snackfoods, esepcially 'round Morning Tea, where home makers had time to prepare cakes and biscuits to enjoy with a cuppa.
The first protoype Taminondas designed was the Iced VoVo (named after his ice-covered 244 sation wagon on a winters morning), with the coconut "bits", when eaten in from of the microphone/camera fitted TV, providing vital information back to researchers. Sadly, most got stuck down the lounge on in the teeth, and the IcedVoVo was declared a failure.
Further research ensued, and after a lengthy process, a new, more reliable device was launched. The Teatime Information Module, or TimTAM.

by Bereft Skerrick on June 11, 2007 at 10:06 PM

What a load of C$&P!! Does anyone know anyone who has ever has an OZTAM meter? At nearly 50, I have never met anyone who has had one or even known anyone else who has had one in their house. What a dupe!

by Ross on June 11, 2007 at 10:11 PM

And now you're telling me it's a joke? After I ripped my TV to bits looking for the camera?
Man, you had me there ... Very clever. Very, very clever :P

by Dan on June 11, 2007 at 10:26 PM

"This article is a load of rubbish. There are not little cameras in every TV watching our movements. It is categorically incorrect - check the OzTam website."
Pollio, your powers of deduction are phenomenal. As you are far and away the greatest mind of our generation, might I ask why you're wasting your evenings on the SMH blogs?

by Flashman on June 11, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Just maybe the point here of the article is... how useless the ratings really are (3035 homes out of approx. 5 million = a 0.06% sample! - love to know what other industries would take that as remotely close to being a credible sample for extrapolation purposes). To think peoples careers live and die by this is just incredible.

by Steve on June 11, 2007 at 10:43 PM

I was skeptical until i opened up my TV to find out what was goin on.... i found a midget with an abacus!! scared the sh*t outta me...

by Vinny on June 11, 2007 at 10:48 PM

this article is a heap of bull5hit... wireless broadband that connects to your phone... wtf?

by Jeff on June 11, 2007 at 11:09 PM

and i thought people reading the smh would have had enough intelligence to recognise humour when it bit them on the nose...

by lozz on June 11, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Next week: Why there seems to be no relationship between ratings and how good a program is. i believed everything execept for the last bit.
What do you mean seems to be no relationship ? its like there is NO relationship, see programs like weeds, arrested development.

by con on June 12, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Anyone who believed anything after the first paragraph should not be using the internet. You'll only end up sending your bank details to a Nigerian. Turn your computer off now for your own good!

by Rob on June 12, 2007 at 12:12 AM

ouch, that was limper than a Missy Higgins song and only vaguely excusable as humour on the first of April..
The sad truth is that if you did attempt to explain the swelling rip off industry known as market research that is driving the drivel on television its hard to know whether people would laugh or just cry at the tragic state of the film, tv and advertising industries - which are held hostage to all this psuedo-science and psycho-cynicism. You could use chicken legs and voodoo to divine one slop from another and people would still watch most of it.

by cap'n pugwash on June 12, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Geeeez some of the people that have read this article are unbelievably thick...

by NotExcessive on June 12, 2007 at 12:39 AM

It is sad to see what a bunch of boring paranoiacs Australian's have become.
But, the fact that so many people believed that this story was actually true makes me realize with a lot more clarity how come politicians can spruik absolute rubbish at us, and so many people fall for it.
The solution? Simple...
Retrieve your sense of humour (from wherever you put it all those years ago), and get a life. Most importantly, don't denigrate those of us who have retained our sense of humour.
In the end, there is nothing funnier than taking the piss out of something in a bleeding obvious way, and have people get all agitated over the fact that they don't understand the joke.

by Peter Abolins on June 12, 2007 at 04:12 AM

I usually watch TV in the nude. Damn, now I know why I only ever get commercials for Viagra and "add 2-3 inches."

by Dave on June 12, 2007 at 04:14 AM

How nice to see an article telling the truth, I got rid of the TV when I found out, I also recommend the use of a tin foil hat & codpiece. I think ASIO is actually behind it all working for the government!
BEWARE!!!!

by David Ingerson on June 12, 2007 at 06:58 AM

Funny stuff!
Next week: You thought you have voted liberal but WAIT...there's more!

by lido shuffle on June 12, 2007 at 07:06 AM

Some of these responses is like watching the public on The Chaser... they just don't get it when someone is having a lend of them. This, to me, makes it all the more humorous.

Just in case, though, I've put masking tape over that little red stand-by light...

by Pablo on June 12, 2007 at 07:21 AM

For the record I had a real 'people meter' on my tv for about 2-3 years and my brothers family has one now. So they are out there.

You have to log on and off as you come and go and it's hard to get kids and visitors to do so. Also, we used to add a few 'visitors' to shows we really enjoyed in an attempt to boost the ratings.

There are (or were) 'attractive gifts' given for participation.

by Nat on June 12, 2007 at 07:22 AM

I found this article very funny, as it is still a mystery to me how the ratings are compiled despite months ago being interviewed at random by the company which puts forward names to actually contribute to ratings collection. I went through our families viewing habits (neglible, despite having teenagers)and was fairly upfront about the paucity of good TV, excess of American and British programming,loathing of advertising etc etc etc - needless to say I've never heard from them again. We weren't wanted. Do they really want to know what a cross section of the market is interested in watching, or are they supplying only one sector?

by Irene on June 12, 2007 at 08:00 AM

I was half way through the article when I figured out it was a gee up, cameras in TV's?. And after re reading the article I noticed the foto of Borat, that should have been a clue.

Tribal Mind remarks: It's a photo of George Taminondas.

by bobmar28 on June 12, 2007 at 08:11 AM

That's the last time I fool around naked in front of the tele....

by Scared on June 12, 2007 at 08:33 AM

The footage would be better viewing then most of the junk currently on TV. Pity.

by Matt on June 12, 2007 at 08:53 AM

Thanks Bereft for helping my diet! I will never eat a Teatime Information Module again.
"TM: It's a photo of George Taminondas." - Looks more like Theo to me.
TM - having in the past spent time on a software helpdesk can I just thank you on behalf of the LG/SONY/PANASONIC service staff who will called today by the morons who believed the story and want their camera removed.

by Cat on June 12, 2007 at 09:28 AM

Explains why i keep getting ads for cold spoons.

by JC on June 12, 2007 at 09:43 AM

OzTam is real.

http://www.oztam.com.au

by Steven on June 12, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Oh if only -
If only there really was a mike in there. And a camera. Then maybe someone in programming would hear me say 'what a load of crap' and see me turn off, things I do several times a day. They'd hear me say 'surely they don't think I'm stupid enough to want to watch this crap' when I turn on the TV and up pops BB or The Catchup.
Channel 9 would know exactly why I now own complete sets of The Sopranos and The West Wing. Ditto Channel 7 and Stargate SG1.
When will someone invent one of those camera/microphone/broadband thingies? Can I have one when you do? Please?

by meg on June 12, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Who do I have to bribe to get access to some of this spy camera footage? This will be bigger than Big Brother, and I'll be rich, rich, rich!

by David S. on June 12, 2007 at 10:43 AM

I don't know which was funnier: reading the article, or reading the numb-nuts who replied in apoplectic outrage.

Hilarious. =)

by Erin on June 12, 2007 at 10:51 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. i almost laughed my morning coffee out of my nose over this one. it took me about halfway through the piece to realise that it was a joke and i felt a bit stupid, but evidently i'm smarter than some of your readers. .

by cecil on June 12, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Oh God, does the camera record what you do in front of DVD's? You know THOSE kinds of DVD's???
How funny! Thanks for the laugh folks!!

by Elle Jay on June 12, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Everyone who has disputed the fact of the camera in your tv set on this blog has been filmed by their computer screen and the footage sent to ASIO. How dare we not believe everything that has ever been written. I believe every fact that SMH puts on their site.

by Dean on June 12, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Crap, I better put my pants back on I thought I was home alone.

by KJ on June 12, 2007 at 01:01 PM

Very funny article for those of us who actually work in the industry. TAM actually stands for Television Audience measurement. The "People Meters" do exist and are installed in the homes of volunteers, who together comprise a Panel. The viewing habits of the Panel, which is demographically diverse, is analysed on a daily basis. The people meters record per second viewing which means the meters can tell what is being watched every second. S'truth!!

by Jonathan on June 12, 2007 at 01:24 PM

Posted by: Vinny on June 11, 2007 10:48 PM
I just shot OJ out my nose and into my keyboard... Classic!

by Ducks on June 12, 2007 at 02:11 PM

Geez for a moment there I thought you were serious; thanks for freaking me out!

by Liz on June 12, 2007 at 02:19 PM

I agree with Erin. Both the article and the replies were hilarious. But just to make sure I will comb my hair before I turn on the TV tonight. I do want to look my best for the camera.

by Gary on June 12, 2007 at 03:16 PM

We actually received an email from Oztam asking us to assume a different position for sex. They were sick of our usual and wanted a bit of variety.
You had me fooled until the miniature camera bit.

by Maureen on June 12, 2007 at 03:26 PM

"This article is a load of rubbish. There are not little cameras in every TV watching our movements. It is categorically incorrect - check the OzTam website.
Not sure if there is irony intended in this article. If I was David Dale I would be expecting a letter from OzTam's lawyers in the morning."
Nice to know the famous Australian sense of humour that gave us the wonderful Cronulla race riots is still going strong!

by Jordan on June 12, 2007 at 04:14 PM

Posted by: Erin on June 12, 2007 10:51 AM
I agree Erin but I think the numb nuts are definitely funnier. Especially "Pollio". What a dufus.

by Anmada Belle on June 12, 2007 at 04:16 PM

Actually, if you turn off your television set, you can see yourself. So don't me started

by B TRAN on June 12, 2007 at 04:42 PM

And here I was thinking my TV was monitored by the anal probe that Aliens implanted into me.

by Gus on June 12, 2007 at 06:33 PM

Did you hear? They're removing the word 'gullible' from the dictionary!

by simbob on June 12, 2007 at 07:23 PM

This was a short sci-fi story published nearly 20 years ago. Except in the story, the microphones and video only worked when the TV was turned off. After all, what's more innocuous than a turned off TV.
Nice try though.

by Chris on June 12, 2007 at 11:12 PM

This article was not funny, it was just disturbing. Normally I'd say 'don't quit your day job' but this seems to be the author's actual day job. Centrelink is the place for you, buster. I want back the three minutes that you just wasted.

by Sarah on June 13, 2007 at 02:52 AM

Veeeeery funny. Yeah, ha ha ha - NOT! For a moment you had me thinking that all those evenings spent rubbing myself infront of sbs world news was going to wind up on some future reality program...

by derek jerkenstein on June 13, 2007 at 03:17 AM

Time to grab my tinfoil hat

by Jay on June 13, 2007 at 07:35 AM

David you often comment on how Americanised we are becoming in our entertainment choices etc. Now, going on some of these comments, you can add the death of irony to the list of indicators.

by Cat on June 13, 2007 at 08:20 AM

what an insult to the people reading this column! If you are going to explain the ratings system then please do it properly.

by Pete on June 13, 2007 at 08:42 AM

Ease up Pete and drop a chill-pill. Do you really want to know how the rating system works or are you just frustrated in the face of irony?

By the way, the Morgan-Gallup poll is based upon a man and a horse and which direction they take when given the giddyup.

by wombatman on June 13, 2007 at 01:07 PM

A team from Google Research has developed a prototype system that uses a home computer�s internal microphone to listen to the ambient audio in a room, determine what is being watched on TV and offer web-based supplemental information, services and shopping contextual to each program being watched. It�s strange, but it sounds like it works and people might really like it. There�s no indication yet whether or when this could be available as a service.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/06/08/google-research-prototypes-ambient-audio-contextual-content/

by ixlr8 on June 14, 2007 at 03:45 PM

In Britian they have two-way TVs. Foxtel uses a two-way connection. That's getting pretty close.
Supposing the cameras were real, do you think the OzTAM website would really admit to it?

by michi on June 24, 2007 at 05:26 PM

The Sun-Herald

Who We Are

The Tribal Mind: How they know what you're watching

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES